Abstract
The Utrecht Law Review is an open-access peer-reviewed journal which aims to offer an international academic platform for cross-border legal research. In the first place, this concerns research in which the boundaries of the classic branches of the law (private law, criminal law, constitutional and administrative law, European and public international law) are crossed and connections are made between these areas of the law, amongst others from a comparative law perspective. In addition, the journal welcomes research in which classic law is brought face to face with not strictly legal disciplines such as philosophy, economics, political sciences and public administration science.The journal was established in 2005 and is affiliated to the Utrecht University School of Law. If you wish to receive e-mail alerts please join the mailing list.
Highlights
In 2005, the European Group on Tort Law (EGTL), in a widely acclaimed effort to contribute to the further harmonisation of the law of tort in Europe, published its Principles of European Tort Law.[1]
The mere possibility of such a reversal is already somewhat surprising since the PETL are predominantly devoted to substantive law issues; the PETL do, contain a number of specific provisions on the subject of the burden of proof even though this is quite generally regarded as a procedural law topic
Article 4:201 Paragraph 1 PETL opens up the possibility of a reversal if ‘the gravity of the danger presented by the activity’ gives rise to this
Summary
In 2005, the European Group on Tort Law (EGTL), in a widely acclaimed effort to contribute to the further harmonisation of the law of tort in Europe, published its Principles of European Tort Law (hereafter: the PETL or Principles).[1] The PETL are meant to serve as common principles of ‘European tort law’ (if that already exists at all) and as the starting point for the future discussion on the possible harmonisation or even unification of tort law in Europe.[2] Under these Principles, especially in cases of liability based on fault, the burden of proving fault is in some instances ‘relaxed’ or even ‘mitigated’ through the acceptance of a reversal of that burden of proof. In that evaluation I will provide an assessment of the subject in its entirety from the perspective of whether we are on the right track towards a ‘European tort law’ if we follow the principles as they stand (if and to the extent that such a European tort law might be considered desirable)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
